Styles v The Queen - [2021] NZHC 1957

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE, SUBMISSIONS AND PASSAGES OF THIS JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO S 205 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 AS OUTLINED IN PARA [17].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-485-52

[2021] NZHC 1957

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

IN THE MATTER

of an application for Suppression Orders

BETWEEN

DOUGLAS STYLES

Appellant

AND

THE CROWN

Respondent

Hearing: 29 July 2021

Appearances:

S J Fraser for the Appellant

J A Eng and S Trounson for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Suppression orders)

[1] The appellant seeks suppression orders under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 in connection with his appeal to this Court.

[2] On 18 January 2018 the appellant received a sentencing indication which he subsequently accepted. He was convicted of blackmail,1 and accessing a computer system with intent to cause loss.2 On 21 March 2018 he was sentenced to 100 hours’

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 237(1) and 238 (maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment).
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 249 (maximum penalty 5 years’ imprisonment).

STYLES v THE CROWN [2021] NZHC 1957 [30 July 2021]

community work and nine months’ supervision. The nature of the offending was described in the following way in the sentencing indication:

[5] The short facts are that Mr Styles’ company, which is a company owned entirely by him, sent an email to the chief executive officer of a hotel which the defendant knew of. The email stated that if the hotel failed to transfer over a million dollars into the bank account of the company he would release information which was described as nefarious and sadistic purposes about the hotel. This was back in July last year.

[3] The Judge described this as a “relatively unsophisticated blackmail attempt”. The second charge arose from him making an internet booking at the hotel changing the price so that he booked the room for $1.

[4] The appeal, which includes an application for leave to file out of time, was filed on 15 July 2021. It covers a number of grounds, but as I understand it the essential point is that the appellant should have been discharged without conviction.

[5] In support of an application for name suppression the appellant has filed an affidavit dated 4 May 2021. Counsel has also provided the Court with a decision of District Court dated 21 April 2021 under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 concerning a further period of compulsory assessment and treatment that the appellant is currently undergoing.

Jurisdiction to make orders

[6] The Crown raised a preliminary question as to whether there is any jurisdiction for the Court to make suppression orders given that none were made in the lower Court, particularly suppression orders on an interim basis.

[7] The ability to make orders of the kind sought is regulated by s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Under s 200(2)(a) the Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Styles v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Styles v The Queen [2021] NZHC 1957
Case: [2021] NZHC 1957
Decision Date: 30 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Styles v The Crown, the appellant sought suppression orders under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The appellant was convicted of blackmail and accessing a computer system with intent to cause loss and was sentenced to community work and supervision. The appeal, which includes an application for leave to file out of time, was filed on 15 July 2021, and the essential point is that the appellant should have been discharged without conviction.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included the jurisdiction of the Court to make suppression orders when none were made in the lower Court, particularly suppression orders on an interim basis, and the approach to suppression orders under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The court considered the principles involved in potential suppression under s 200 and the related provisions, which are well settled, and the starting point is always the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right of the media to report proceedings fairly and accurately on behalf of the public.

The court's reasoning and outcome were that there is nothing in s 200 that suggests that a Court cannot make a suppression order in the terms of the section if suppression has not earlier been made. The fact that suppression has not earlier been made, particularly where there is already some publicity about the potentially protected person, will be a relevant consideration. But there is plainly still jurisdiction to make an order. The court also concluded that the appellant must satisfy the Court of extreme hardship under s 200(2)(a), and that it is insufficient to show only an arguable case.

In conclusion, the application for name suppression was declined, and the suppression orders made at the hearing were discharged. The only suppression order that remains in effect is that made under s 205 referred to above. The court also provided directions for the procedure for the appeal, including the requirement for the appellant to file and serve particularised grounds of appeal and any further evidence by specified dates.

Orders